He discusses the following questions: What is evolution (and what is it not)? What is a theory in science? Genetic inheritance. Artificial selection and natural selection. Mutation. Epigenetic variation. Genetic drift and the impact of variations.

The rise and demise of the crocoduck. Recognizing reality is not a supremacist policy. Misrepresentation of evolution. Evolution as fact and theory. Why understanding evolution is important? Scientific inheritance that benefits us all.

206 Comments / User Reviews

its just a theory that doesnt hold
you are trying to say that we evolve but the facts you just show are explaining ADAPTATION NOT EVOLUTION !!!
you keep repeating nature nature nature we say GOD creates and controls everything the proof is DNA
how can you be so blind ?
did nature do the code of DNA or did it come out of nothing ?
you have many many programmers that work together for many years just to do a computer program and that is a precise job because if one letter is coded wrong the program it will not work it will show error or have anomalies
so many many INTELLIGENT programmers do a PRECISE work for many years just for a program WHO WAS THAT INTELLIGENT BEING WHO HAS DONE THE CODE OF DNA ?
NATURE ? NO
NATURE DOESNT HAVE INTELLIGENCE
DID IT COME BY ITSELF ? NO
it was done by a SUPREME BEING THE ALL KNOWLEDGE THE CREATOR by GOD
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY explain that we hadnt come from one simple ancestor we have come from one complex ancestor humans come from human ancestor dogs from dogs ancestor cats from cats ancestor monkeys from monkeys ancestor
but why you dream that monkeys and humans have one ancestor
there is no proof of that just some scientists imagination

There is no empirical, primo facie proof (evidence) that any, of your 28,000,000 deities (gods) in recorded history have existed, all it is, is your religious mass (hypnosis) hallucinations!

Artemis
- 05/12/2018 at 14:14

I've come to the conclusion that the TDF community is a lot like Junior High School. The "cool" kids are all over every doc commenting at length their absolute facts and scientific knowledge while cutting down and criticising anyone who has a differing opinion. And dare anyone have an opinion that is born of religious belief then they are trampled on more forcefully and called names to boot. I have learned a lot by reading the comments. In fact, I read more comments than watch the docs lately. Often I find something mentioned that I've never heard of, like spagyric, and proceed to investigate further to understand and enlighten. And many times I have my own thoughts and opinions regarding the subject matter but I will never put them them forth in such a contentious and demeaning forum. Not puttin' my head on that chopping block for your entertainment. Would that we were open, mature and tolerant enough to say, "I respect your opinion/belief tho' my own leans more in this direction and I'll explain why." Rather than calling people morons, idiots, stupid or religees. "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, then are dreamed of in your philosophy." And this, ladies and gentlemen is exactly what's wrong in the world today. People are more interested in being right and stomping into the dirt the people they believe are wrong than looking at where ideas might have similarities or convergences and building on that. The comment threads are quite an interesting microcosm of human behavior and interaction. And not necessarily a positve and uplifting one.

Artemis:
People who comment on this site are rarely well developed people.
The ones who are have friends, interests and real things to do.
They don't holler back and forth online.
They meet in healthy environments and share face to face.
The people here have never developed to that level.
They only have the internet that can't run them out or confront them with constructive criticism.

DustUp
- 03/14/2018 at 06:31

To use the same terminology as some of commenters... The ignorant evolution freaks could care less what evidence there is against the unproven, wishful thinking of "evolution". It really isn't even a Theory since no data about one specie becoming another specie has ever been recorded nor is repeatable ... those things necessary for an actual theory.

Charles Darwin never proved it, said it would be up to future generations. None has proved it yet nor is it likely any will. However, people wishful think "evolution" to be true because their egos cannot handle the fact that their could be something greater than themselves and that they should treat all with respect.

What has been proven is that when species change their characteristics too far from their original, they either revert back or dead end. The mule is an example of a dead end.

Why is there a dead end, why can't mules procreate if evolution is evoluting?

"...cannot handle the fact that their could be something greater than themselves and that they should treat all with respect.."

This gets me all the time. Opponents of evolution like to use faith/spirituality in the debate. Evolution makes no attempt to either discredit or disprove the existence of any supreme deiety. The faith/god/spiritual angle does not apply.

"What has been proven is that when species change their characteristics too far from their original, they either revert back or dead end."

I'm going to borrow a one-word statement for anyone who cares on the topic of evolution.....

FOSSIL

DustUp
- 12/24/2018 at 04:02

@Mac: Although I didn't refer to faith nor spirituality in my words. What was Darwin's purpose in his blatantly unproven hypothesis? He was of the atheist group. Marxists loved him for they want to know nothing, not even IDEAS greater than theirs ... as their intellectually bankrupt power grab would then be ruined.

Adaptation and Mutation are not Evolution. Some animals "change characteristics" when they adapt by changing colors from season to season. Others from location to location. There are bacteria which adapt to look like many other things in 12 different stages having different characteristics somewhat akin to a caterpillar becoming a moth but dependent on environmental conditions. Does that mean they evolved into something else over time?

My statements are only contradictory to those that need them to be. Considering me to be "blasting evolution science" is humorous compared to those before me blasting anything that isn't along with all their childish name calling. It seems you didn't care for it, which was the point of the original first sentence. Further, evolution isn't science at all. It is a misrepresentation of nature. Unless you want to call theater representing life, call that a science too.

Do you have some rule that evolution can only be disproven by using the confines of evolution hypothesis? That would be typical of those that cannot handle things different than they would prefer them to be. If creationists have a different hypothesis it would only make sense that they would express that versus some other notion like evolution.

FOSSILs prove that there were a lot of extinct creatures, nothing more. It is only wishful thinking to take the leap that one "evolved" into a completely different specie. Adaptations and mutations are not evolution. Otherwise we would still be observing things coming out of the sea to become land lubbers.

There is a reason Evolution is promoted in school along with all the other things that are not true. Why is it so important for you to defend a unproven theory? That question has no bearing on faith/spirituality which is a different subject.

mark
- 09/14/2017 at 13:16

Great set of videos, clear and concise including the refutations of the ignorant. Skimming through the comments section one cannot help but notice the similarity to idiotic claims made by climate change deniers.

You argue that organisms evolve through processes that does not involve design. Yet man has evolved to a point where he can design his own evolution. How is it possible for a group of brain cells to evolve to a point where they can, in effect, design the next step in their evolution? Is it not conceivable that living cells have always been capable of self-design to some lesser and evolving extent which has now reached its highest state. To concede this point would offer a much needed mechanism to stand with natural selection, adaptation, and mutation, which by themselves, I believe, lack convincing explanatory power supporting evolutionary theory.

I find it incredible that people posting comments on the Internet cite Wikipedia as a credible source. You people do understand how Wikipedia works, don't you? It's the most closed "open" system there is, dominated by a handful of editors who throw out any article contributions they don't agree with.

Evolution is not a true science. lets be clear on that.
Sir Karl Popper one of the greatest philosophers of the 20'th century have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all. If you are on the side of science, you stand for reason, logic, hard facts, verifiable data, skepticism.

The emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.
The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, How could they be since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. There were no human witnesses to the origin of the universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. So with the lack of observable data another big problem with Evolution is that not even the fossil record support it, and as more fossils are found the problem only gets worse. the new fossils just resemble those already found and don't fill in the gaps.

Evolution theory claims - Once there existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. With each generation These supposedly changed by small amounts as they evolved into the present varieties, Then Why Doesn't the fossil record show these gradual changes? what it shows Instead is the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, with all their characteristics, not changing over time, and fully complete. What about the "missing link" problem?
Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms.

I normally stay away from comments. However, I agree with Lisa Ostrouch. Most people don't have the time to educate themselves in order competently research creation or evolutionary concepts. If you are an advocate of the Darwinian theory of evolution than the burden of answering where the complex codes came from that regulate the formation of life development on this planet is upon you to explain in a precise and non-nebulous manner. In over 30 years of reading tech manuals on this subject I have never seen any book explain it. As a matter of fact the authors seem to be completely unaware that this vital requirement of explanation exists. Some have tried to satisfy this requirement by using mutation and selection as a premise, which gets broken down once the DNA process is fairly understood.
On the other hand some folks get mixed up between a constitutional right to conceptualize Deity and the Truth of that matter. A constitutional right is not a Divine right to think as a person pleases. The two are diametrically opposed as far as Hebraic Bible concepts are concerned. There are basically two ways in which most people in this age become trained in a Bible. One way is to be introduced to the New Testament book of John and regulate it as Triune doctrine. The other way is to read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations without preconceived notions. Sadly, the first is more popular. So, truth of Deity becomes just a matter of opinion, and who can blame any thinking person who claims to atheism. However, one fact stands out amongst the others once the Bible is read with open eyes. It's the Jews survival. There is no other race that has survived the types of racial genocide the Jew has faced and still walks the Earth. Besides this fact, twice in the 1990's TRex bones were discovered with unfossilized blood in tissue. This fact alone may speak volumes in favor of a different time application, other than the theory applied to our planet or evolution.

No, the burden of proof lays with you to prove your allegations.
Prove that YOUR "Hebraic Bible concepts" are the words spoken by YOUR God, and not just man made utterings. In fact need proof there is any deity/deities at all that made stuff.

fizbin
- 10/30/2014 at 12:40

Your argument is cyclic. The flaw in your logic is proven by the fact that you want the answer that you are not willing to process yourself, or you do not know where to find it. At any rate, we can deal with this - If the razor is what you wish and if you think you are serious, I will continue an indepth controlled discussion with you via email. I will get to know who you are.

Achems_Razor
- 10/30/2014 at 14:45

Whoa! you are one scary dude! no room on TDF with your threatening remarks to cause bodily harm, your condescending tone alone gives me cause to ban you from TDF!
Actually on further deliberation you are uttering a implied threat! therefore you are banned!

test
- 01/14/2015 at 03:28

Didn't the Jews survive because their religion evolved? Biblical Hebrews wouldn't recognize modern Judaism as the same religion. The religion had to adapt after the fall of the 2nd temple. Without the 2nd temple there is no way to be a practicing Jew as described in the Bible. That's how Rabbinic Judaism came to be. Even religion evolves to survive. Just sayin'.

tom432
- 04/27/2014 at 18:46

Im on the side of evolution however I don't think its wrapped up as nicely as people like to think there is a bit of faith just like religion. the questions people asked the maker of this video are ubsured and stupid an eye is not that complex compared to the brain of any animal. but I do have a problem with diversity. this as far as I know has never been explained in some instances many animals evolve different abilitys to survive in there environment. small islands of new Zealand have a amazing array of adapted animals/birds that no longer fly and serve the role of rats they evolved a new way of thriving in there environment. now hears my point ants buck the trend ants are everywere some very different to others but the are still ants. they are perfect for any environment so they have thrived but why every where surly some where something would have evolved that could do what ants do better or evolved to fill the gap but no, every forest, jungle, crack in a pavement there every where. animals evolve and that's no argument we've selectively breed some bulls to the point they cant even reproduce with out are help! the problem with evolution is not the process of natural selection its that it trys to tell us in no uncertain terms that it is a fact and there is nothing wrong with the theory just with your understanding. THIS IS RELIGION not science there are unanswered questions and so its not 100% fact. its dangerous to call it fact we cant be sure.

It was never claimed that the eye was the most complex organ. The brain is indeed very complex, but since all chordates have brains, the complexity reducibility isn't challenged, as anything from a few dozen brain cells to billions of brain cells is easily demonstrable.

I can tell you, there are no ants in areas that freeze a good portion of the time (subarctic and arctic regions). Fitness for a niche doesn't always mean that something else will always take over for something else like you seem to expect for ants. Ants may well be the most efficient creatures in the niches in which they are found, while in others they are out-competed by termites. carpenter bees, beetles, etc.

tom432
- 04/30/2015 at 19:04

good point don't know how I forgot to say anything about the poles no ants their. termites do out compete ants in some places in the world but they only use wood I think. so are not in direct competion with most ants. plus I can use that why haven't the termites become dominant in more places in the world like ants. beetles are incredible and would surely fill a the gap if ants disappeared. but hay just making the point its not quite as simple as we are taught. I think u have put your self in a little hole there. what ever organ its made of cells the brain may not have the most varied form of cell but the interconnectedness of every cell is in its self what makes the brain complex. one cell in the eye serves its purpose a lens cell a retina cell these serve a purpose 1 purpose a brain cell is adaptive it can connect to other cell to form new patterns id like to see a lens cell do that. as proof of what im saying look at stroke patient who re learn what they have lost. this can include speech vision (extremely rarebit possible) and movement

Jerry Bauble
- 04/17/2014 at 23:32

this is a fairy tale... the only thing missing is "a long time ago, in a far away place..."

I liked these videos and found them quite useful. I wish they showed these in schools. I think it is quite necessary to explain evolution in this way, as many people have no real understanding of what it is and is not.

I thought the first video was fairly descent but then like the children involved in this little temper-tantrum he resorts to the same meaningless trickery and slight-of-hand nonsense demonstrated by both sides. Showing how a mouse trap would still work is hardly meaningful.

This has now become likened to a debate over a glass being half-full or half-empty. No matter how much you insist you see only what you want to see. One could find examples of different eye's from all the animals that exist but that hardly proves anything other than some animals have different eyes. The complexity of the human eye extends far beyond it's physical attributes which in and of itself are astounding. The neural, motor-dependency ,psychological-dependency and much more must also be examined. The eye did not evolve of itself, the entire driving network of the being itself must also evolve to make use of the new data. Just the switch from the first two phases alone would demand an intense and complete-altering of entire processes to make use of it. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck doesn't scientifically prove it is of common descent from a duck.

The 3rd part that responds to anti-evolutionist's comments is totally unnecessary and I was mildly annoyed by the tone of voice of the narrator, but I do believe in the Evolution theory. In fact, But I would have called it "Adaptation Theory". Organisms adapt to their environment to survive and one of the important part of adaptation is diet. Enormous changes can occur just by changing diet. Appendages evolve with the type of food an animal eat and the associated behaviors. Terence McKenna goes as far as saying that apes became humans by eating psychedelics such a magic mushrooms - that could have created a major change don't you think?

and the tone of this so called documentary is filled with such an self enjoying tone, almost narcesistik that i think that u need to find it in ur self to be humble and realize that other theories are worth putting thought in to, no matter how purly they are reprisented, no theory is not worth taking in to consideration

when you state "realize that other theories are worth putting thought in to," do you mean scientific theories with demonstrable proof and falsifiability or the layman's idea of theory which is just a guess? my grammar is terrible but i hope English is not your first language. you want an alternative theory considered? okay please state this theory in a way that i can test and repeat it for myself. evolution is not an opinion it is a fact that has mountains of evidence and has been repeated and observed many times.

robertallen1
- 07/21/2013 at 07:26

First of all, you have no idea what a scientific theory is. Second, if there's no evidence, there's no theory. In other words, absence of evidence is evidence of absence which is why no one with half a mind and half an education do takes little green men seriously. Your post is complete nonsense made worse by your inability to post in standard English.

Lukas
- 07/21/2013 at 05:03

And i think its ignorant to state that people that are against evolution simply dosent have the compasety to comprehend the complexety of evolution

how can u state that natural selection and natural evolution has no end game goal?

isnt that purely ur opinion,

is a theses to be proven fals if insuficient evidence is collected or acepted by main stream sience?

are my post not worth thinkin of/answering to, just couse i cant spell or that my gramma is terible?

I would have loved to see that u had clearly stated that this is urs and others opinion suported by theories and facts from the main stream sience comunety, people might have a les harder time recognising that this is ur personal opinion, or any ways reprisented as if.

Lukas, your grasp of the subject is about as good as your grasp of the English language. Metaphorically, neither seems to have evolved an opposing digit.
The use of the term "no end game" is simply another way of saying "without volition" i.e. not the product of will and therefore without purpose.
Just as hydrogen and oxygen molecules have to "desire" to form water, DNA has no "desire" to be modified (mutated) by gamma rays or mutagenic chemicals and neither process includes an investment by the components in the result.
The natural explanation (no magic required) is an alternative to the older paradigm of "animism" which you apparently embrace.
The evolution of human thought has steadily replaced supernatural explanations with natural ones. To my knowledge the reverse has yet to occur.
You are of course free to cling to the paradigms that predate science, but I rather doubt that you will add to human understanding in the process.

Did you at least try to take a closer look at those links ? I don't think so .

Very 'scientific " attitude of yours indeed.

Thanks for nothing anyway

robertallen1
- 03/26/2013 at 19:48

Yes I did. And you're the one who's dismissing the evidence which consists of, among others, Aristarchus, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, all of whom lived centuries before Islam. This makes you a pathetically and wilfully ignorant cheap Moslim proselytizer. .

over the edge
- 03/26/2013 at 17:41

please read the comment policy. your recent comment went to moderation because it included a link. all comments that include a link go to moderation.

Rachid Talal
- 03/26/2013 at 18:47

What do you think of those links then ?

Did you take a look at them ? Hope ,so.

Thanks .

Epicurus
- 03/25/2013 at 21:15

should i respond to that joey kid or did he go away? i dont want to make a big long response to him if its useless.

Oh, Mr. Biologist! The guy who can't waste his time proving that he is a biologist (as opposed to a Mr. Biologist) when his posts prove that he isn't.

No, it's not worth the effort. Your time would be much better spent viewing the 10-minute audio clip on You Tube entitled "Refuting Kenneth R. Miller on Chromosome 2" and getting back to me with your thoughts.
Speaking of You Tube, there's an interesting dialogue between Dr. Dawkins and Steven Rose which might be of some interest, especially to both you and Over the Edge.

Epicurus
- 03/26/2013 at 16:32

wow i keep forgetting to look at that. but remember im not a biologist, im a biological anthropologist. but i will give it a look tonight when im done my essay

robertallen1
- 03/26/2013 at 16:38

Thanks ahead of time.
Once again, as a biological anthropologist, you might be interested in the discussion between Dr. Dawkins and Steven Rose.

Emergency Stop
- 03/26/2013 at 05:13

Sort discussion from newest and collapse the first 5 threads. That's works until the next comment gets posted replying to no one, but then it will be 6 and so on.

robertallen1
- 03/26/2013 at 06:05

Thank you. This new system is terrible.

Emergency Stop
- 03/26/2013 at 16:41

I'm glad it didn't lead you astray. I've had some difficulties with this system as well.

robertallen1
- 03/26/2013 at 16:44

Epicurus jogged my memory by mentioning "Mr. Biologist." One way or the other, I was able to find it. But yes, this new system did lead me astray.

over the edge
- 03/26/2013 at 05:22

you ask "should i respond to that joey" i am not sure but i hope you have better luck than i did getting him to answer questions and provide something that resembles proof.

Rachid Talal
- 03/23/2013 at 18:46

Come on, guys ,

Do not be silly : Evolution was / is and still will be the work of God .The same goes for the laws of physics.......

Beside the biological evolution , man gotta go through spiritual intellectual and psychological evolution with death as just the beginning of our further ultimate spiritual evolution .

Just how do you know this? Can you scientifically prove the existence of god (and by this, which god?). Can you scientifically prove the existence of the spirit? If you can't, then your statement that the ultimate nature of reality, whatever that's supposed to mean, is spiritual is as idiotic as your statement that matter is in essence energy or action.

LoggerheadShrike
- 07/20/2013 at 04:44

So ... how did you find out about the "ultimate nature of reality"? Voices in your head? Some ideas that you liked?

It's just arrogant BS. You don't know anything about the "ultimate nature of reality". You don't know what lies after death. You don't know that if there is anything after death, that there's a god involved. You believe these things but you don't KNOW them and that's the arrogance and falsehood of religion - to misrepresent their uncertainty and lie about it, claiming knowledge where they have none, just like everyone else. And yes I understand that this truth isn't compatible with the practice of "faith" which means to falsely pretend to know something you don't. But that's dishonest and arrogant.

Joey
- 03/23/2013 at 17:33

Honestly, no more time for ignorant wordplays. All my posts had scientific proof, and your only comeback is 'where is proof, you lie you cannot be a biologist, evolution happened etc.' Do you not read a single word I say? If you admit evolution cannot explain the origin of life, and you claim to be an evolutionist, then what explanation do you have for it? Honestly, I am just curious now. You cannot be this delusional. This is getting funny now. Grow up and accept that there might be ideas that you do not always agree with. Internet is not your playground where you can tell lies, scream curses. From now on, I'll only answer to those who watch their mouths. And stop cursing Anthony Flew as a crazy old man just because he stopped being an atheist. Seriously, are you getting this ugly now?

"Do you not read a single word I say? If you admit evolution cannot explain the origin of life" Did you read a single word of the reply I made to you stating "You should understand evolution better than that, if you really are a biologist, evolution has nothing to do with first life." or origin of life.

over the edge
- 03/23/2013 at 17:50

again you have provided absolutely no scientific proof for anything. i will try one last time.

1 "If you admit evolution cannot explain the origin of life, and you claim to be an evolutionist, then what explanation do you have for it?" evolution cannot explain it because it has nothing to do with it. as for the origins of life "i do not know" is my answer.

we will start with these. they are your claims and you have the burden to either back them up with demonstrable scientific proof or admit you cannot. please no more logical fallicies as they do nothing but weaken your argument

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 18:05

Mr. Biologist, your idea of scientific proof seems to consist of attempts to misrepresent the statements of others who know far more about biology (evolution) and science in general than you do, i.e., your intellectual betters. This includes not only those who post here, but reputable scientists such as Alan Feduccia. As an example, Over_the_Edge did not admit that evolution cannot explain the origin of life (nothing so far can), but rather that it was not within its purview--I forgot, we have a Mr. Biologist here so let me put it differently--evolution deals the origin of life like changing a tire deals with auto mechanics--sort of to not at all.

Mr. Biologist, what could be more delusional (that is from a scientific point of view which you should know something about) than the "Atlas of Creation?"

"Internet is not your playground where you can tell lies, scream curses." Mr. Biologist, the only one who's been telling lies is you and curses are simply not allowed on this thread, ask any moderator such as the one to whom you've been directing all your opsts.
"From now on, I'll only answer to those who watch their mouths." Mr. Biologist, how does one watch his mouth while keyboarding. Isn't this known as a mixed metaphor? One way or the other, is this a threat or a gift?

Mr. Biologist, go back to your "lab" in the sky (or whever it is).

Achems_Razor
- 03/24/2013 at 00:04

I have checked your profile, you say in one of your posts "There are thousands of biologists brave enough to admit that they do not believe in evolution" really? could one of those be a wackaloon named Ken Ham.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

By the way I don't think you are a biologist, a wanna-be maybe.

LoggerheadShrike
- 07/20/2013 at 04:50

Joey, it's not possible that you ever studied evolution in an academic setting or you'd know that evolution does not deal with the origin of life; that's abiogenesis, a completely different thing. Evolution deals with the diversity of species, not the origin of life, as any first year student will tell you. You simply could not have studied at any level beyond high school.

Joey
- 03/23/2013 at 16:19

As soon as some people hear a view that opposes evolution, they adopt a hateful tone, and instead of putting forward scientific evidence to prove evolution, they make personal attacks. Harun Yahya uses only scientific evidence to refute evolution. If you have anything to say to that go ahead with scientific proof. But your anger, and your hateful remarks just prove that you have nothing scientific to say. And you should know that your offensive remarks are targeting yourself, no one else.
I will not reply any more to hateful remarks. But for those respectful, loving people who can bear to listen to something that they do not agree, here is some explanations:

1. If evolution really happened, I would still believe in God and would say God must have created life through evolution. I have nothing against evolution. But the science proves otherwise. So why should I be obssessed with such a ridiculous idea that says for example the dinasours turned into birds while chasing the flies.
2.First of all, evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Your documentary accepts this too. A protein cannot come into being by chance. Because for a protein to come into being, another protein is needed. The DNA, the enzymes, the organels, the cell had to be there. Do you actually know how fragile the protein is? Although it is impossible, let's say for a second that a protein popped into existence, it would have been destroyed immediately in the harsh conditions of the early earth. All the evolutionists accept this too. Please do some research on google.
3. 350 million fossils were unearthed so far, and ALL OF THEM SHOW THAT THE SPECIES HAD NOT CHANGED AT ALL. IF EVOLUTION HAPPENED, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRILLION FOSSILS OF THOSE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSILS, like a bird with half a wing. But alas for you, there is none. Archeopteryx is a bird with claws on wings, just like some birds species living today. Anyway there were birds living at the same time with Archeopteryx. Listen to Alan Feduccia to learn more about it.
4. Atlas of Creation proves with fossils that evolution never happened. The book relies on science, nothing else.
My suggestion, try to stop being so biased against any idea that does not comply with yours. Be democratic and open minded. If you really believe in science, you should be open to new ideas, too. Seems like evolution is turning into a kind of religion for you, which you feel like you have to defend at all costs.
5. It is childish for you to expect me to prove you I am a biologist. And there are thousands of biologists who are brave enough to admit that they do not believe in evolution, even though that means they could get fired.

you state "If you have anything to say to that go ahead with scientific proof" and seeing as you have lots to say you must have lots of proof to back up the following claims
-"evolution cannot explain the origin of life" this i agree with but please explain what evolution has to do with the origin of life?

- where in evolutionary theory would this statement even get consideration "You can resemble your parent, but that does not mean that you are going to grow an extra arm" ?

- please point me to where this evidence is "Richard Dawkins. He'll tell you, he agrees. He now thinks that the aliens must have planted life on earth"? i am hoping i do not get a link to Steins highly edited video for this.

-"Mutations are always (99.99%) detrimental" please show me scientific proof for this claim?

now please do not give me an emotional response or use all caps. do not tell me that other scientists believe as you do or that an atheist converted on his/her death bed. these arguments do not prove anything and as a scientist you should know that appeals such as these are not the way a scientist should act when proposing something in a scientific manner. your claims have to stand on the facts alone.

Joey
- 03/23/2013 at 17:01

Hi Edge,
Please see my latest post, where I gave links to Dawkins's confession and another link about him answering to a question about mutations.

Joey
- 03/23/2013 at 17:04

Just ignore all the comments by Steins, I dont care about his editing or comments. I am talking about Dawkins. Dawkins himself says it, and I respect him for that. Francis Crick also thinks the same way. At least he accepts that life is too complex to be by chance.

over the edge
- 03/23/2013 at 17:13

and Dawkins answers were in response to a question that basically stated "do you see any way that ID could be true" so Dawkins bent over backwards to try to give him one. nothing more. again what Francis Crick believes is not a concern of mine either is Dawkins attempt to satisfy a hypothetical. again can you provide proof for your claims? do you hold yourself to the same standard as you do others? if so please respond in accordance with "If you have anything to say to that go ahead with scientific proof". finally where in evolutionary theory does it state that the complexity of life is the result of chance alone?

Joey
- 03/23/2013 at 17:17

Well if you dont believe it is chance, then you believe there is a deliberate intervention.

over the edge
- 03/23/2013 at 17:24

no natural selection is the driving force that directs random mutations. i do not believe i have to explain this to a biologist. please answer my questions and supply the scientific proof for your assertions. i have no desire to argue semantics,word play,arguments from ignorance or arguments from authority,false dichotomies and so on any longer. no scientist worth his/her salt would act this way and expect to be taken seriously. so please before i waste any more time on this. do you plan on backing up your claims with scientific proof?

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 17:34

Mr. Biologist, have you ever heard of natural process?

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 17:32

Which reputable biologist states that life evolved by chance as opposed to natural processes? Another mischaracterization.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 17:19

I have ten American dollars (I might even be persuaded to make it twenty) which says that he can't answer a single question with anything approaching science.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 17:14

1. Mr. Biologist, what makes the idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds so ridiculous when there is plenty of hard evidence from paleontology to microbiology to prove it? And, Mr. Biologist, what makes you think that this proven transition has anything to do with chasing flies?

2. "First of all, evolution cannot explain the origin of life." What a strange thing to keyboard. Mr. Biologist, didn't they teach you in school that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life; that's abiogenesis?

3. Mr. Biologist, it must have been explained to you in at least one of your classes that all species and fossils are transitional, but you probably had your nose in "Atlas of Creation" at the time and there was no way the lecturer could compete with all those stunning pictures in such brilliant color. It was probably much like reading Playboy to learn about biology. And, Mr. Biologist, have you actually read any of the works of Alan Feduccia and tried to comprehend what he is really saying about the archeopteryx before positing your watered-down and blatant distortion?

4. Mr. Biolologist, just what scientific proof does the "Atlas of Creation" offer to demonstrate that evolution never happened, on what science does it rely and what are its author's qualifications? As a matter of fact, Mr. Biologist, have you ever cracked open a biology textbook other than, of course, "Atlas of Creation?"

5. Mr. Biologist, can you name a few of these brave biologists (other than yourself) who uncategorically do not believe in evolution. How great a percentage of mainstream biology do they represent?

Mr. Biologist, why do you hide behind the smoke screen of "new ideas" to justify the ignorance and downright idiocy you and the "Atlas of Creation" have expressed and why do you expect respect for doing so? Mr. Biologist, just what type of a biologist are you?

Vlatko
- 03/23/2013 at 17:22

That was a good one... Mr. Biologist.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 17:44

Actually, Alan Feduccia is a highly-respected mainstream avian paleontologist who actually supports the "ridiculous idea" that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but differs only as to the type of dinosaurs they evolved from. Once again, Mr. Biologist is just being . . . well,, Mr. Biologist.

Samuel Morrissey
- 03/23/2013 at 18:20

1. God? who said anything about god? I was talking about evolution. You brought god up. You brought atheism up.

2. Because evolution does not explain the origin of life, it in no way supports any ideas correct or otherwise about the origin of life. evolution explains the fact that species or forms change over time due to environmental pressures, natural selection amongst other things. If you were a biologist you would know this.

3. Well you're obviously not a geologist either, though you really shouldn't let that prevent you from understanding the basic concepts about fossils, how and when they form, and why in a much larger number of cases they don't. You're implying that every creature that ever lived should be fossilized. In terms of 'transitional forms' that exhibit either incomplete features of modern creatures or a mixture of parts from different species would actually be very definite proof that evolution had got it wrong.

4. As there are and always will be large gaps in the fossil record, whatever conclusions that book makes are not based on all the evidence. At best they are built upon a fraction of the evidence, all of which together makes a much better case for evolution being the process by which the myriad forms arise than any other argument offered so far. Back when there was only the fossil record, and the study of animals, after a life time of observation and logical testing, the evidence overwhelmed Darwin who had firmly believed in a particular religious explanation up until that point.

5. It is not childish. You ask for proof of evolution that is a mouse click away, and yet you take offense when required to do the same with a much simpler statement that I have no way of proving myself. A paragraph or 2 about verifiable biological mechanisms would satisfy me. Heck, you could probably even fool me if you were sharp enough with wikipedia. Let me explain something to you, I couldn't care less what you think about god, or religion, or atheists. However since you are so keen to regurgitate your personal delusions over discussions regarding science - ideas like religion, spirituality, souls, etc. however you call it, do not pass by default. Because science cannot explain something yet, in no way lends any credence to any other idea.

Ideas stand (or fall) on the evidence (or lack of) of logical tests.

Ideas like Creator Gods who are by definition unprovable let alone improbable do not get special treatment. As far as logical tests go, because the idea of god defies proof, there are none I know of. There is zero evidence for many of these ideas. If there is a single piece of supporting evidence for any idea, it is therefore as far as we know significantly more likely to be accurate than an opposing idea that has none.

Oh and I don't hate you. If you stopped being ignorant to peoples questions, and either offered proof or retracted your arguments, then. Then we could have a discussion, wherein we might all learn something. I live in hope.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 18:28

Could you possibly clarify the following: "In terms of 'transitional forms' that exhibit either incomplete features of modern creatures or a mixture of parts from different species would actually be very definite proof that evolution had got it wrong." I think I understand it. Isn't the simpler ancestor of the bacterial flagellum which has been discussed by Dr. Miller an example of what can be regarded retrospectively as "incomplete features."

Samuel Morrissey
- 03/23/2013 at 18:53

Yes you are correct I think. At least, either objectively or subjectively we may certainly perceive a feature to be a simile of a modern feature in a more primitive state. Ostriches wings could be considered 'half wings' I guess. I was responding to the incomplete idea like an arm missing the hand. If that makes sense. Bear with me -

If a woman gave birth to a daughter that had and extra half an arm, then the daughter gave birth to a daughter with an extra upper arm and forearm but no hand, then finally the grand daughter gives birth to a child with a 'complete' extra arm, hand fingers and all. That would be proof that evolution was not wholly correct.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 19:58

Indeed it would. Thanks for the clarification. For evolution to occur, it seems that two things must happen: a beneficial genetic mutation and the ability of that genetic mutation to be passed along to future generations. This clearly explains why the ancestors of giraffes turn out to have been short-necked. It wasn't that somewhere along the line, a member decided to grow a longer neck to enable it to reach the tree tops for sustenance, but rather that a beneficial genetic mutation capable of being passed down developed allowing for giraffes to share the resources of say a tree with fellow denizens, i.e., some eat from the bottom of the tree, while the giraffe eats from the top. Had this mutation not taken place, we might not have anything today like the gorgeous Rothschild giraffe.
:

Samuel Morrissey
- 03/23/2013 at 20:48

Ahh giraffes. They are utterly magnificent creatures.

As I understand it, the lengthening of the neck could happen in relatively quick spurts if the environmental pressure - a drought for instance - affecting the groups territory enough to make the trees lose most of their foliage. The higher leaves would be considerably better, and this could decimate a population of short necks several times within a generation leaving more each time of the longest necked creatures to further the species. On the other hand, giraffes do assist each other to reach the best food, mating partners pulling down the best branches in courtship, and of course mothers for their offspring.

Otherwise and in between, there may still be a gradual trend towards longer necks who tend to be healthier and reproduce more due to the ability to get the best nutrition from the environment. There is of course a physiological limit. I would even go as far as to suggest that possibly it is now impossible for giraffe necks to get any longer due to nerve cells approaching a functional limit due to their length. Likewise with humans, the trend as extensively evidenced by modern archaeology has been to get taller, but above about 7 feet the nerves to the lower extremities become severely compromised. A mutation that increased the number of nerve cells in line could be another (although pretty unlikely) way that a sudden burst of trending towards taller or longer might become more likely.

Since hormone levels during development determine overall length or height (basically dictating the amount of growth) a mutation that changes the output of specific growth hormones by the brain can cause either a gigantic or dwarfed organism relative to its contemporaries, so in these cases where the change in physical size does not cause other harmful complications, the mutation can be passed on, If it is dominant and/or particularly advantageous then over time, the entire population will shift to the grossly adjusted size, without a great many intermediary stages.

In fact, a mutation that caused the helping behavior to become more prominent could be the origin of the long neck which was only then able to begin to develop in that direction.

But I am not a biologist so I appreciate any corrections, additions, or refinements anyone might have.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 21:35

Thank you.

Joey
- 03/23/2013 at 14:17

Samuel do you even hear yourself? You can resemble your parent, but that does not mean that you are going to grow an extra arm, or the baby giraffe will not have a longer neck because the mother was reaching out all the time. I am a biologist, what about you?

To make it easier for people to follow a discussion here, could you please click on the reply button at the bottom of the comment you're replying to. Thanks.

Samuel Morrissey
- 03/23/2013 at 14:28

Me? I've just got a very short fuse for bullsh!t. Must be shorter than normal today.

Biologist indeed- that is in blatant contradiction with your statements about evolution, which is the pinnacle of biology. At this point you should be aware that I do not believe you, and lead you back to my honest requests;

Please back up your assertions that 'evolution is now such a collapsed theory' and that beneficial mutations are impossible.

lastly, please provide some discourse or credentials to back up your statement 'I am a biologist, what about you?'

Joey
- 03/23/2013 at 14:47

Samuel, one short answer: Check Atlas of Creation. Seriously my time is very valuable to spend on people who do not want to see. The fact is crystal clear. The theory of evolution is dead. Mutations are always (99.99%) detrimental. Go ask your king Richard Dawkins. He'll tell you, he agrees. He now thinks that the aliens must have planted life on earth, because evolution cannot explain it.

Samuel Morrissey
- 03/23/2013 at 15:10

What for would I check atlas of creation when I am waiting for you to answer my questions, and defend the fact that I think you are lying about being a biologist?

No offense intended, honestly but you appear to have some seriously flawed preconceptions about evolution and how it works. What would probably be helpful for discussion if you could explain in your own words what evolution means to you?

dewflirt
- 03/23/2013 at 15:53

Well, I just checked Atlas of Creation.

"There is no other Creator than God, and no other power but Him. Therefore, there is nothing but proofs of the fact of Creation on Earth."

Good luck getting that past the TDF community ;)

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 16:34

There can be no two ways about it, there is a creator and that creator is god.

Now according to McAnally, "Irish Wonders," "The leprachaun is about three feet high, and is dressed in a little red jacket or roundabout, with red breeches buckled at the knee, gray or black stockings, and a hat, cocked in the style of a century ago, over a little, old, withered face. Round his neck is an Elizabethan ruff, and frills of lace are at his wrists. On the wild west coast, where the Atlantic winds bring almost constant rains, he dispenses with ruff and frills and wears a frieze overcoat over his pretty red suit, so that, unless on the lookout for the cocked hat, ye might pass a Leprechawn on the road and never know it's himself that's in it at all."
So there can be no two ways about it, there are leprachauns and they must exist alongside god the creator.
Are you still in the states or are you back in Ireland? If the latter, how was your visit?

dewflirt
- 03/23/2013 at 17:01

Now you're a believer I'm sure the little people will be visiting ;) I'm home now (in England) but the trip was good. Top tip, get yourself a homeless guy as a tour guide. They know where the best fun is. I made it to Gee's Bend to see the quilts, too beautiful!

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 17:28

Let us know when you're planning to return, if ever.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 16:25

I have and it's an ignorant and despicable fraud written by an ignorant and despicable person.

"Mutations are always (99.99%) detrimental." This statement is proof positive that you have lied about being a biologist just as you have lied about Dr. Dawkins who never indicated that he thinks that aliens must have planted life on earth.
Maybe you should be spending your "valuable time" on others who'll buy into your ignorance and lies, but it's really a shame that such people exist.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 16:06

You've displayed far more patience with it than I have.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 16:08

You've demonstrated far more patience with it than I have.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 16:04

You can't be much of a biologist if you deny evolution. Now, why don't you read Mr. Morrissey's post again, because what you've characterized him as having said, he didn't.

Joey
- 03/23/2013 at 13:03

I am shocked that you say physical traits aquired by the parents can be passed on to the next generations. So you believe in Lamarck when he said giraffes got taller trying to reach the upper leaves. It is wrong, only if a mutation happens in the germ cells, (which is 99.999% times detrimental) and only somehow it is useful (which is impossible as I said, it would be like hammering an incredibly complex machine and expecting it to get better), then it could be passed on to the next generations. So if you work out all your life, your child will not be born as a muscular person. Please be honest, and stop this deception. If your problem is that you want to be an atheist, ok do it, it's your choice, but evolution is now such a collapsed theory, it is ridiculous. Do not try to hold on to that. Look at Anthony Flew, the former master of the atheists. He was an honest man. At the age of 87, after leading a life as a most outspoken atheist, he said that 'all my life I followed the truth as Socrates said, and I now admit that the science proves the existence of a Creator.' If you want to see the scientific evidences of God's existence, then I suggest you look at the documentaries of Harun Yahya.

Do you know anything at all about gene expression/activation?
Depending on your lifestyle and environmental pressures certain sequences will be either activated or suppressed. This is passed to the offspring. If you work out your whole life, your child will be more likely and find it easier to do the same.

Care to back up your assertion that 'evolution is now such a collapsed theory'?

Care to back up your assertion that beneficial mutation is 'impossible'?

Master of the atheists? Sounds like an 80's cartoon.

robertallen1
- 03/23/2013 at 15:59

Harun Yahya? You are recommending the writings of a holocaust denier, of someone who denies evolution because he believes that evolution denies the existence of God, abolishes moral values, promotes materialism and Communism--that's what you call science?

Anthony Flew was only one person and from all accounts towards the end of his life, mentally unbalanced.

If evolution is such a collapsed theory, why is it not only accepted by the preponderance of mainstream scientists the world over, but of profound and widespread use in biology, medicine and computer science.

Using a dangerous and ignorant pice of trash like Harun Yahya as a source of "knowledge" puts you in the same disgusting league.

jj-not-lehto
- 03/15/2013 at 16:45

This is a good document of evolution.
But it still leaves one question unanswered:

How come there is different amout of genomes?

I mean, genomes comes in full numbers, and spieces with different amount of genomes can not breed.

So, if we and apes have common ancestor, why do we have different amount of genomes?

When came the first human with our amount of genomes, and how could he/she find a mate with exactly the same error in genomes?

"millions of years of evolution" does not explain this.

Based on the fact that there is different amount of genomes, it should the basically be possible that a human will give birth to an, lets say, ape or sheep. Or whatever.

So, what I would like to see, is explanation how there can be different amount of genomes!

You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is, much less a religion. Why don't you read up on these before keyboarding your ignorance to the world?

Base of Reason
- 02/12/2013 at 23:57

you have obviously not read the definitions of the words you are using. See below. And the religion of science? I don't see any biologists or astrophysicists trying to tell me how to run my life, what I can and can not do, or trying to rape my little cousin.

LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

THEORY

1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:13

The law of gravity is a theory. (In the scientific sense of the word.)

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:16

'It's only a theory' is perhaps the most-used criticism of evolution through natural selection.
I know I'm quoting some giant or other when I say that what you think of as a theory is just a hunch, or hypothesis. This is fundamentally different from the meaning of 'theory' in science, and I would consult the Oxford English dictionary (or others) for an accurate definition.

robertallen1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:20

Save yourself the trouble. See post from Base of Reason to PhdsRus of 25 days ago. I doubt if it's sunk in.

mermaid_tail
- 01/08/2013 at 15:28

these videos are great. clear, well-articulated, and to-the-point. if I was a science teacher I would show these in my classroom.

The title of this is enough to know its a waste of time; it purports to pit evolution: -something for which there is no possible doubt -having been proven 50 different ways over the last 150 years by the greatest minds on the planet. against 'intelligent design' (aka known as 'God creates everything out of nothing' -What god is or came from is unknown.. God u unknown..so saying 'god did it' is identical with saying I Dont Know!

If you look closely enough you will find the world is not as it appears (real and static) but neither are you otherwise. (taken from a quote from buddha) and true if you discipline yourself to daily meditation. Turn the mind inward, just do not add or take away anything.. and try and silence the mind. This is for difficult for people trained since birth with constant mental stimulation.. but it is, in time, rewarding. Thoughts can be seen as structures that pass through.. dont attach..let them pass,, aim for dissolution and seek to abide in that state..in short time you will improve..the bliss that arises is indescribable. *Im not any religion.. just human and glad to be alive and fortunate than most.. tho the states of the world horrifies me regylarly

I think the first paragraph is also as far in one direction as the poster not wanting to know science if it disagrees with the bible is in the other. The first paragraph thinking is how we were stuck with flat earth and earth centered solar system "indisputable science" for centuries. So not much better approach to the scientific method than the religious zealots
.

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:01

Is this really your name? Did your mother like George Orwell?

trollington mctroller
- 11/25/2012 at 16:33

the best part of this video is when he shows the opposing arguments and reduces them too the "truth" on which they are based and then explains using real science how they are fundamentally wrong. Its like watching a spoiled brat get spanked by their ugly mom.

It would seem that those who's ideas are at greatest risk tend to shout the loudest. This is common practice with children. So why are we argung with children (creationists)? Why do we give authority to children (creationists) in the first place?

Children are the future . Children were brought up to belief in creation not by their own choice but by their so called matured adults parents . Irresponsible, ignorant , peer, society pressure or all other enforced such endless cycle of creationist believers . Is it the children that should be hold responsible for this problem or the parents is at fault ?

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:09

There is a gorgeous quote from Darwin that you may know which says what you are saying, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
I love it.

hocuspocusrifraf
- 11/16/2012 at 18:46

Opinion implies making a choice, therefor people who do not choose their beliefs have no opinion. Very few people who 'believe' ever chose to do so. One can not reason with someone who refuses to choose what they believe. I admire the author's patience.

Are you saying that the concept of choosing to believe is idiotic and that those with no beliefs (i.e., middle-of-the-roaders) have no opinions?

hocuspocusrifraf
- 11/19/2012 at 09:42

No. I'm saying that those who do not choose their religious beliefs (which is the case for most religious people as they are born into them) can hardly have a personal opinion regarding something that their religion refutes i.e. evolution. They are merely regurgitating nonsensical voodoo gibberish. Talk to one, you've talked to them all.

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:18

Dawkins now refuses to argue with religious fundamentalists. I think his head is hurting from banging it against so many walls.

Mookleong
- 11/14/2012 at 18:18

Jack and Robertallan , just can't help but to notice you 2 writing and writing to promote your scientific view on almost all matter , On the AA debunk and technology of the God in particular . Noticed the AA Debunk on youtube is turned into a war between believer of AA against the religious and people like you on the other fence ? Like it or not , Columbus story of discovering America is still around and mentioned and heard that frequently on the net . What can you do to stop such unhistorical facts still being circulated ? What can you do to stop those exposed to religious indoctrination from early age to think rationally and stop cursing others? By writing on all matters that concern sciences on the net ? History were written by the victor ,reinforced by our education system and propagated further by Hollywood and host of others media . History you studied in school were all facts and truth ? What is being taught in the school now ? Story of Christopher is no longer there and so are some of the scientific facts you were exposed to . Facts and number that you crunched so hard and taken at heart are mostly useless now .
My education in history in the 70's was Christopher Columbus discovering America , 7 crusader war to retake Jerusalem and all the story that tinged with the victorious christian and the (white) . Movie from Hollywood showed John Wayne heroic conquer of the wild west and Ten Commendment by Chales ton Heston glorifying god . How to correct all this misinformation done ? Are you sure that all these misinformation is not there in our present blockbuster ?
When was Quantum physics being part of your education syllabus ? I was still studying Newton and that bit on Einstein in my high school year . Not all can be that scientific inclined then during school days and our little scientific knowledge acquired is not needed in the working life in general . You 2 are the lucky one that through interest or needs that you are keeping abreast with the latest development in science and willing and able to write and express well in lots of discipline . Please bear in mind that bulk of the viewer are not that well educated or scientific inclined like you two . Instead of attacking on all front , maybe choose to concentrate on the one that you think needed most of your effort . Just a suggestion form you 2 to ponder

I believe the TL;DR is that Mookleong suggests you and Jack1952 concentrate your laser-like beams of defense of science towards the select few who could benefit most from it, rather than spraying your wisdom onto everyone who crosses your path at random.

Bearing in mind that most people are operating from actual rather than deliberate ignorance, he feels you might get better results that way. =)

(Not sure how that pertains to the current discussion, but I like to help out when I can!)

robertallen1
- 11/14/2012 at 21:14

Thank you. If this poster has anything to say, let him say it clearly.

Mookleong
- 11/15/2012 at 17:01

Ya , you got it right and said it in such few sentences . It is a struggle for me at times to inter translate the language i have to live with . All culture have to talked about the heroic past and mighty struggle they have to face . this to me apply to the scientific community as well to the historian now . So Jack, My history book was written by the British and studied by the colonized poor country right up till the late 70's. We have to read more about the western value than our native culture which was always label as inferior outright or in all other forms of information directly or indirectly implying such . University of 3 years spent in the USA further expose me to western culture which i hold on dearly till 5 years ago . I am from a country that is dominated by the Muslim follow by Christian ,Taoist, Buddhist , Hindu and Sikh and host of other minor religion that i can't name them all . we have to study 3 languages and speak at least 2 other dialect to survive here . Colorful upbringing and exposure that makes me a absolutely non bias observer of various religion which i am not attached to any and the multi racial and multi culture which is beyond your wildest dream . You said it out loud of your narrow minded guess and labelled me as culturally biased in my posting . This is one of the problem you have of which i shake it off 5 years ago . Anyway , thanks so much for the rumbling on all this science facts . Do hope that one day i might have to pay to read what you published and hopefully it is going to be expensive la

robertallen1
- 11/15/2012 at 17:41

I fail to see what all this has to do with evolution.

Mookleong
- 11/17/2012 at 14:51

What is human going through in the model of Darwin evolution at this present age ? From the short history of few thousand years on record that some writing or artifact we can safely draw some conclusion .What did Darwin said about our few thousand years of evolution of human being ? That human evolve into the present form by natural or artificial or both selection? I draw on the history to elaborate that anthropologist , archeologist or biologist so called data and statistic can be as biased as the history . What is fed into the Darwinian theory can be as falsify as the human history which was lazed with human imagination or interpreting history from a small corner of the earth and imposed on others as fact and history .
What make you so sure that what you have read and understood must be the correct scientific facts that can't be refuted ? Einstein theory of constant speed of light was just proven wrong and quantum theory proof convincingly that space and time does not apply to entangled particles and proven so in experiment .
There are plenty of not so learned viewer on this page here , some may not be as analytical or scientific as you . They are posting their 2 cents worth of opinion just like me that draws fire from you . You can go on doing this as habit or self esteem boasting exercise to show your prowess in writing down some general science or spend some time to look other way . Try to look up the Ancient Hindu cosmology if you are the freak like me that is simply love cosmology of old and new

Samuel Morrissey
- 11/17/2012 at 18:08

Mooklelong, I contend that data and statistics gathered by the diligent use of the scientific method can not be 'biased' - they are merely recordings of experimental observation and results. The whole idea is to see the truth of the results, regardless of the bias that may or may not have been inherent in your predictions.

Mistakes can be and are made. Nobody is perfect. At least scientific data can be amended after the mistake is discovered. If we try to ammend the bible or qoran or [insert religious text of your choice here] to what we actually know and can prove from history, archaeology, anthropology etc we end up with a very very short book.

You wrote 'Einsteins theory of constant speed of light was just proven wrong'

No it wasn't, it was never a theory anyway in that his equations do not require that the actual speed of light is forever constant, only that it doesn't matter how fast you are going relative to it, your measurement of its speed will remain the same whether you were stationary, travelling parallel in the same direction or the opposite.
The speed of light 'c' is our best measurement of the speed light travels through a vacuum. Light travels at a different speed in air, water, glass, crystals etc. as can be observed in real time as it distorts through these mediums.

The 'constant' is mainly used to imply the changing that is done by the measuring devices as their speed changes relative to the light they are measuring, meaning that all measurements will return identical (constant) results, even if traveling away from each other, at the speed of light!

Another constant thing about it is the amount of energy it would take to accelerate an object with mass to that speed, which is infinity. The funny thing is, were you already traveling faster, it would take the same amount of energy to decelerate to it.

If you're not convinced by evolution Theory, OK. In my honest opinion that's a little irrational considering the data available to us all, but it is no crime. Be careful though, should you think to put another idea forward, that it has a comparable level of repeatable experiment and data behind it if you want it to be held on equal terms with the other theories.

Regards,
Sam.

Mookleong
- 11/18/2012 at 15:21

This is the reply i would love to read and learn more . Did i mentioned any of my religious belief ? I am more of agnostic at best , a bit close to Darwin declaration as so . I am not that particular interested into a specific field of study but rather like to tie up all i can watch rather read : there was a revolution of our species , we somehow skip some evolution process that can be clearly traced in the animal kingdom but not enough human fossil to fully support evolution theory. Substantial evidence to oppose Darwinian evolution that did not fit the puzzle drawn out were not given due attention .
I am amused at time that some defender of any science theory by poster here is more ferocious that the theorist in that specific field .

robertallen1
- 11/18/2012 at 16:14

For your information, in modern biology fossils, fascinating as they are, tell only a part of the story, genetics and molecular biology relate a lot more.

Now, what is this substantial information opposing "Darwinian evolution" (and by the way, there's only one type of evolution) that was not given due attention because it did not "fit the puzzle drawn out?" And while we're at it, what's this skip in the evolution process.

Again, why don't you read up on biology and physics BEFORE ignorantly posting about them?

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 03:59

Not true. There is also evolutionary drift.
What on earth does 'modern biology fossils' mean?

robertallen1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:07

Of course there's evolutionary drift. This list was not meant to be inclusive.
Pretend there is a comma after "modern biology"

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:11

Well, it did seem that your argument was mean to be 'exclusive' as you say there is only one type of evolution.

robertallen1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:17

No, it was a response to the phrase "Darwinian evolution" as if there is some other completely different type. If an adjective must proceed the noun, the most accurate one is biological.

Jack1952
- 11/19/2012 at 01:51

If you want to know more about evolution, I would suggest that you read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne. Although English isn't your first language, I think you will find it easy to read and understand. It will help you to see why evolution is the accepted theory in the academic world. It is also a very informative read and even if you still do not accept evolution when you are done reading this book, you will have learned a great deal...and this is what you wanted in the first place.

Mookleong
- 11/19/2012 at 09:12

Thanks a lot for the suggestion . I think i am done with reading some books that reinforced what i have learn in college . What ultimately interest me at the moment is to find out why Maya world by the Hindu text , Buddha ultimate thought of a mirage world are being studied again by our cosmologist , astropyhsicist or theorist that describing the same thing with different language . My apology to you should you feel offended by some of my rude comments or language .I was probing to get some feedback i needed

robertallen1
- 11/17/2012 at 19:03

Did you ever think of reading up on biology and physics before posting about them? I won't go into detail because Samuel Morrissey has already done a fine job of chopping your post down to the ignorant drivel that it is.

Jack1952
- 11/14/2012 at 19:28

It is obvious you did not read or comprehend a single word I said about Columbus. When they say Columbus discovered America it is understood that it was the people of the Old World discovered America. Most of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa did not know that it existed so to them it was a discovery. Columbus died not knowing that it was the Americas that he had voyaged to, believing that he had reached the outer islands of Asia. Its significance lies in the fact that from that point on the world changed. It set into motion the expansion of European power and imperialism. The people of the Americas were also in the dark concerning the Old World. Columbus's voyages were a turning point in the lives of these people, albeit a negative one. The effects of Columbus's voyages are huge and one of the significant episodes in modern history.

The truth is the crusades were driven by the belief that Jerusalem had to taken back from the Muslims. That is fact. That is why it happened. It doesn't make it morally right but it doesn't change what motivated them. You can't change history to reflect your disapproval of their motives. Muslim armies invaded Jerusalem and European Christian nations wanted this city to remain a Christian community. You may not like how it was presented to you in school but it is still the way it was.

Any culture you investigate will talk about the heroics of their past and the mighty struggles they faced. It is normal for any society to do so. Yet, for some reason, when Americans speak with pride of their past, people become indignant. Their are aspects of their history that we find repugnant today but one can do this with any culture, race or country on the planet. It is part of being human. John Wayne is a part of the American culture and is used for entertainment purposes. Accept it as such just as you would a story about your own people.

Your views of science and history are strongly influenced by the biases you feel towards the nationalities and cultures of those who study and teach these disciplines. This bias does not allow you to seek knowledge in an objective manner. It clouds everything that you read and learn. As much as I abhor the excesses of Hitler, if he says that 1+1=2, he would still be correct. It doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he stood for but in this aspect I would have to agree with him.

Both science and history have been strongly researched and written about. All written material is reviewed by other scholars and approved or disproved. It is a long and arduous process and it is the best way to understand the workings of the world and it will never stop as all scholars know there will always be more to learn about any given subject. Those who write about AA are subject to the same scrutiny as any other historical scholar. If their material does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny it is probably because they haven't proven their case.

Smith Donaldson
- 11/14/2012 at 16:43

if the bible is wrong i don't want to be right. some things are more important than the truth.

Well....... That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

Please don't tell me you've passed these genes on.

varun prasad
- 12/03/2012 at 05:13

That has got to be the most ignorant, childish, unenlightened and moronic statement I have ever had to read. What on Earth does it even mean? Claiming that there are 'things more important than the truth' directly violates the moral demand religions make on believers to be honest. In this case, even if you accept evolution to be true, you are willing to reject it and then dishonestly spread the word of God.
To what end, may I ask? Why would you do that?

Rampage
- 03/05/2013 at 23:22

What could be more important than truth???

Mookleong
- 11/14/2012 at 06:54

What human being is going through now or for the past few thousand of our recorded history ? Artificial or natural selection of the evolution theory played the dominant role to make us what we are now ? Christopher Columbus did not discover north america , have the world historian removed and buried this incorrect facts ? Not only it was not corrected but it is almost prophesying as the truth and stand to be the historical facts for all to read and be indoctrinated . What is the difference between Darwin's so call scientific theory and the Columbus discovery ? It is going to be the theory with some science finding that fits its assumption and propagated as scientific as hell . While discarding away the puzzle that does not fit .

Do you mind letting us in on what you're driving at? Do you have any idea what a scientific theory is? Do have any idea of basic biology?

Jack1952
- 11/14/2012 at 14:29

Everyone knows that Columbus was not the first to discover America. What he did was usher is a new era in world history. After his voyage nothing was ever the same. That is why he is remembered. Norse voyages are known as historical fact but their effects on history is negligible. The arrival of the first Amerindians did not have the world historical implications that the arrival of Columbus did. Please understand. Columbus did not discover the Americas. It is an established fact known by all historians. Google his name and you will not find anyone who makes this claim. You are using an argument that is not supported by any facts. There is no indoctrination. Only those with an unreasonable bias against established knowledge would say such a statement.

Quoted from Wikipedia.
"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy."

You would do well to continue to read this article and others to fully understand the term "scientific theory". It is more than obvious that you do not understand this term at this moment. Using Columbus as a way to refute evolution proves this. If you want to refute evolution you have to show through reasoned observations how it would not be possible.

Phill Pelling
- 11/13/2012 at 16:31

Great, Especialy the end part as you debunk the debunkers.
It clearly shows evolution is true.
Creating some people who are smart and some who are dumb.
If we were all created equal by God we would all be just as smart as the next person. this clearly is not the case.....

Fantastic !
I love a well-reasoned agrument, regardless of topic.
Good animation, too.
Also brilliantly explained, and rather entertaining, as well.
This dude is razor sharp... I wish more of my friends knew how to spot and ID fallacy like this guy.
Creationism... hah!
There are few things in life more frightening than ignorance in action.
-g

@Pop Slag
Well, that's a big part of the dilemma, alright... But you never know about the fence-sitters out there, too, and what they might be hungry for. Could be some of these facts might provide at least more sway, or even a last push, towards a rational view of the issue to people who have been more or less looking for it, but, for whatever reason, haven't been quite clear on the points or knowledgeable enough about them to finally convince themselves once and for all. A well-articulated argument, or rebuttal, can sometimes make a huge amount of difference for folks not quite able to do that for themselves.

A bright little piece of pristine rationality to help keep your head on straight in a world that appears increasingly full of substandard thinking and thinly disguised fundamentalist bullsh-t of one stripe or another.
10 out of 10.

problem is the people who need to watch it and pay attention are the very same fundamentalist nutters who will never agree with the points.
10 out of 10- if you are in the choir and want to hear a sermon...

imdwalrss
please list a couple of these errors and i am sure someone will attempt to address them.

fonbindelhofas
- 11/11/2012 at 19:42

can we hear "...all sorts of errors, misrepresentations." you talk about?

Jon Oosthuyzen
- 11/12/2012 at 01:21

please list the errors, misrepresentations and jumps in logic and where I can find other scientific representation to refute the video and support your claim. Thanks.

Jack1952
- 11/12/2012 at 19:57

Why make a statement like this and then refuse to answer any questions regarding that statement? A person who won't or can't answer a straight forward question probably doesn't know the answer. A person no one should take seriously.

imdwalrss
- 11/12/2012 at 21:37

No, actually a person who is interested in thinking and exploring can do their own observation and research. It's a big internet, with loads of information, but a venue in which arguments are a waste of time.

robertallen1
- 11/12/2012 at 21:51

Complete garbage. The truth of the matter is that you did not find any errors, misrepresentations and jumps in logic, otherwise you would have enumerated them. This makes you a liar.

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:04

Steady on!

Jack1952
- 11/12/2012 at 22:38

You will argue over why you don't have to answer the questions, though.

No one asked for an argument. You claimed that there were errors in this doc. I didn't notice any but if you did, please tell me. I don't like to be wrong. If you can set me straight I would appreciate it. If you can't or won't I will assume that you are talking through your hat. Best to keep silent lest you prove that you are.

slpsa
- 11/14/2012 at 22:15

I would call you out on these so called mistakes, but it is more than evident, you made an empty comment, with nothing to back it up. Best to say nothing at this point, and say nothing you did. Perfect. There are enough people who are scientifically gifted here. you would open your lips and appear a fool for the second time in one thread. You know what they say, best to say nothing and remove all doubt.....

nitramgnal1
- 03/10/2013 at 04:04

imdwalrss - your comment is very generic. Could you please substantiate it, so we can, as you suggest, study further?

Richard Rose
- 03/10/2013 at 18:45

It's been a long time since I've watched this and won't take the time to review it, but some responses have been quite civil so I'll respond to this one. First I was hasty in stating that there were errors and misrepresentations, as these are more logical than factual and I'm sure not intended to deceive. I must apologize for that. I did find the mousetrap refutation to miss the point by substituting one kind of platform for another and the eye development section mere speculation that did not that I could see explain the survival benefit of the gradual stages that such an evolution would presuppose.

On the logic front, I maintain that the design and evolution sides of this argument are equally scientific or pseudoscientific, as they both deal with historical rather than testable propositions. The only actual observable phenomena are variation of the same kinds of animals, living or fossilized. Both I.D. and evolutionism are attempts to explain the phenomenon of adaptation, (and sometimes origins and the history of the universe I suppose), and it is only by defining science in a way that freezes the opposing view out that ID becomes "pseudoscientific".

I have yet to discuss this with an avid evolutionist who was either willing or able to perceive this as a reasonable argument and really had no intention of trying to convince such, but only to suggest to some who may not have made up their minds to seek further.

I apologize again for my lack of clarity in thought and expression and wish you well. Imdwalrss, I assure you.

robertallen1
- 03/10/2013 at 19:58

" . . . the eye development section mere speculation that did not that I could see explain the survival benefit of the gradual stages that such an evolution would presuppose." Why don't you read the detailed Wikipedia article on the development of the eye before keyboarding such balderdash? And no, it's not speculation, but observation of the hard evidence and speaking of hard evidence, like the science it is, evolution observes; it does not presuppose.

The mousetrap refutation demonstrates that while discrete parts can perform discrete functions, by working cooperatively, they can achieve a different end. As this has been demonstrated to apply to both biological and non-biological entities (e.g., the bacterial flagellum as opposed to its simpler relative and the mousetrap), the analogy is apt.

"On the logic front, I maintain that the design and evolution sides of this argument are equally scientific or pseudoscientific, as they both deal with historical rather than testable propositions." What you maintain is only so much garbage--it's what you can prove. Evolution has been tested and verified in biology, in physics and in chemistry. Among other things, it has proven essential to virology and immunology. The accomplishments engenered as a result of our knowledge of evolution are legion. Now what has ID accomplished? In short, terming evolution pseudoscientific and merely historical as you have done is ignorant and dishonest.

"The only actual observable phenomena are variation of the same kinds of animals, living or fossilized." How do you disgtinguish between one kind of animal and another? How do you explain the fossils found of short-necked ancestors of modern day giraffes? How do you explain the fossils of the small terrestrial ancestors of whales and dolphins? Have you ever observed a child growing into an adult? So don't mention observable phenomena because you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

How can ID even begin to explain the phenomenon of adaptation which is an evolutionary concept? Your claim that it does is not only false, but debases science to the level of religion.

" . . . it is only by defining science in a way that freezes the opposing view out that ID becomes 'pseudoscientific'" as well it should. ID is everything but science.

"I have yet to discuss this with an avid evolutionist who was either willing or able to perceive this as a reasonable argument and really had no intention of trying to convince such, but only to suggest to some who may not have made up their minds to seek further." And why should an avid evolutionist who probably has ten times your scientific education consider your arguments (if you can call them that) reasonable when they are founded on so much ignorance?

You need not apologize for the lack of clarity in thought and expression--you've made yourself quite clear. What you should apologize for is your failure to research and the supersition and ignorance which fills your post.